Why the Left are rejoicing in Mr Phoney Blameron's 'triumph'

Why is the Left-wing BBC trying so hard to persuade us that the Tories are on the way back? Why do you think?

Because the Tories have become Left-liberals, like the BBC. So the BBC now like them, and you shouldn't.

But it's worse than that. The ludicrous, portentous and wrong coverage of Thursday's local elections spread well beyond the BBC.

Consider what actually happened, as opposed to what you have been told by all the journalistic sheep who proclaimed a Tory triumph.

Turnout in the local elections was a piffling 35 per cent.

General Election turnout is almost twice that.

Most of those who didn't vote will be Labour supporters who will probably stir themselves at a real election.

Yes, Labour rightly did badly. But the Tories, equally rightly, didn't do well.

Scroll down for more ...

Tory Boris Johnson triumphed in the London Mayoral elections

Why claim that they did? The Tories are still tiny or non-existent in almost all the major cities of the North of England. Their trumpeted recapture of Bury – which they should never have lost – is paltry.

London is now a separate country with its own rules. Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone are independent brands, semi-detached from their parties.

As for the rest of the country, here's a small example, familiar to me.

On Thursday night, the Tories lost their pathetic two seats in the City of Oxford, which were theirs only because of defections from the Liberals.

Until quite recently, they ran the city and held both its seats in Parliament.

The Tories are still quite capable of losing the next General Election. Even if they do manage to win it, they will govern almost exactly as Gordon Brown.

Nothing will change except the face and the accent.

Something very similar happened in 1997. Millions were persuaded by conformist media coverage to vote against John Major because he was ghastly and boring and Anthony Blair was pretty and charming.

And when it was all over, the Government was almost exactly the same – high taxes, slovenly services, hundreds of thousands of people in baseball caps living off the State, feeble police and courts, mass immigration. You know the sort of thing.

Real changes in British politics don't come at elections, where we increasingly do as we are told and elect whatever is put in front of us.

They come in the form of establishment palace revolutions, helped by the media.

The biggest was the merciless public knifing of Margaret Thatcher in 1990, when she realised the true nature of the EU and began to oppose it.

But around the same time was the orchestrated takeover of the Labour Party by the constitutional, cultural and sexual revolutionaries who now run it – and who are good friends and neighbours of the people who now run the Tories.

Then there was the extraordinary destruction of Iain Duncan Smith as Tory leader and his replacement by Michael Howard, who proceeded to act as a sort

The Left-wing media were once again deeply involved in what was an establishment effort to save the Tory Party from collapse.

Why did the Left suddenly fall in love with Mr Howard, whom they used to loathe? Why did they want to save the Tory Party?

Because they feared that, if it collapsed, a proper pro-British Party might rise from the ruins, a possibility they dread.

And finally there was the media-led coronation of David Cameron as Tory leader, another Establishment intervention to make sure that the Conservative Party stayed firmly in what they call "the centre" – ie pro-EU, anti-education, pro-immigration, committed to high spending and high taxes and a monstrous welfare state, useless to any decent, hard-working person.

The Establishment know that Labour are unpopular, as of course they should be. They are unpopular because their policies are stupid and wrong.

But the Establishment want to keep the policies. So at the next Election they aim to provide a safety valve for angry voters – a chance to choose

different faces, but the same awful Government.

Then, after a bit of that, it will be back to Labour again.

The only way to break this cycle is to refuse to join the game, and refuse to be fooled into electing Mr Phoney Blameron.

You ask: "How can he possibly be worse than Gordon Brown?" Just you wait and see.

A squalid game that steals young minds

Could it possibly be bad for a child or a teenager to spend long hours impersonating a violent car thief?

Old-fashioned childhood games did at least have goodies and baddies – and the goodies were supposed to win.

Scroll down for more ...

Bloody glamour: Grand Theft Auto IV lives up to the hype

But Grand Theft Auto, the squalid mind poison now going on the market in its latest version (pictured above), assumes that wickedness, callousness and violence are cool, and has no goodies at all.

The consumers of this mental slurry all maintain that it's just a game and has no effect on them.

But isn't the most potent brainwashing the kind you aren't aware of? When do you find out that you are a desensitised amoral husk, capable of dreadful actions you once couldn't have contemplated? When it's too late.

In the US, the game has been accused of influencing several young men into committing violent crimes.

Of course, these claims cannot be proved conclusively. But it is in our imaginations that we solve moral problems.

If our imaginations are full of the toxic fantasies of Grand Theft Auto, more realistic every time it is "improved", aren't we more likely to make the wrong choice?

Like poor Joyce and Sybil, we've all been conned

We were told that the civil partnership laws were all about compassion.

We were persuaded that, without these changes, long-standing homosexual couples would be forced to sell their homes to pay death duties when one of them died.

It was their 'Human Right' not to suffer this.

Well, where's the compassion, or the "Human Rights" when sisters Joyce and Sybil Burden seek the same privileges? Nowhere to be seen.

The thing was a fraud. It wasn't about kindness at all, only about furthering the sexual revolution.

______________________

• Those who tell me there's nothing to worry about and we are not a nation in moral decline need to explain why school crossing ladies now need spy cameras in their lollipops to catch people who plough on past, knowing there are children crossing.

Moral panic? Or real danger?

______________________

• Lord Laidlaw says he is a "sex-addict".

Actually he's just a dirty old man, in the same way that alleged "bulimic" John Prescott is a greedy fat pig.

But the fact that supposedly educated people take his Lordship's claim of "addiction" seriously tells you something you badly need to know – but which is almost unsayable in a society where nobody's to blame for anything.

There's no such thing as "addiction".

People take drugs, smoke, drink too much and eat until they turn into lard balloons because they want to, more than they want to stop.